Ground Attack English Electric (BAC) Lightning

[Knightflyer]

Hi All

So I have a Airfix Lightning F.2A, and I have the Freightdog set for the FGA project conversion, and I'm looking forward to the build, but the question is whom for?

99% of my models are UK armed forces, so my question is would the RAF had any use (or need?) for a ground-attack Lightning?

My understanding is that this project creates a relatively lightly armed, but presumably fast attack aircraft; was it just aimed at the export market, or did somebody foresee a potential use for the RAF


Any basic background on the project (to increase my understanding)  and ideas for usage would be appreciated

thanks

[Dizzyfugu]

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia actually used their Lightnings in the ground attack role, the export versions had more weapon stations.

[Thorvic]

The idea was to re-role the older Lightning models as they were replaced by the F-6, i suspect they were seen as a cheap interim Hunter replacement, for RAF Germany and East of Suez as they could respond quicker, and share a common maintenance with their Interceptor versions.

[Knightflyer]

The idea was to re-role the older Lightning models as they were replaced by the F-6, i suspect they were seen as a cheap interim Hunter replacement, for RAF Germany and East of Suez as they could respond quicker, and share a common maintenance with their Interceptor versions.

Hi Thorvic - thanks, that makes a good starting point. So high speed interdictors on the Inner German Border, sharing facilities with their 19 and 92 squadron 'cousins' perhaps?

[Librarian]

The early Lightnings were contemporaries of the SU-7 and although the latter was a disappointment as a fighter it went on to have a long career in the ground-attack role. Would be fun to see the Lightning 'racked' up for similar missions

[Knightflyer]

Okay - so the Lightning FGA was a brochure proposal in 1960.

Looking in Vic Flintham book -  In 1960, RAF Germany had Hunter F.6s flying with No.4, 93, 118, 14, 20 and 26 squadrons at either Jever or Gutersloh and Canberra intedictors elsewhere.

So my thinking is that one of those Hunter squadron's would be ideal candidate for the FGA Lightning in the early 1960s?

[PR19_Kit]

Okay - so the Lightning FGA was a brochure proposal in 1960.

Looking in Vic Flintham book -  In 1960, RAF Germany had Hunter F.6s flying with No.4, 93, 118, 14, 20 and 26 squadrons at either Jever or Gutersloh and Canberra intedictors elsewhere.

So my thinking is that one of those Hunter squadron's would be ideal candidate for the FGA Lightning in the early 1960s?

They'd need a co-located tanker squadron if they were based at Jever, it's around 160 miles from the FGR-DDR border and at low level carrying stores a Lightning would be running on fumes by then, let alone have enough range to get to a target and RTB. 

[Knightflyer]

Okay - so the Lightning FGA was a brochure proposal in 1960.

Looking in Vic Flintham book -  In 1960, RAF Germany had Hunter F.6s flying with No.4, 93, 118, 14, 20 and 26 squadrons at either Jever or Gutersloh and Canberra intedictors elsewhere.

So my thinking is that one of those Hunter squadron's would be ideal candidate for the FGA Lightning in the early 1960s?

They'd need a co-located tanker squadron if they were based at Jever, it's around 160 miles from the FGR-DDR border and at low level carrying stores a Lightning would be running on fumes by then, let alone have enough range to get to a target and RTB. 

That's a very good point Kit, and does make me wonder what use a ground attack Lightning would've been to anyone really, let alone the RAF ?

But for whiffing purposes it looks like 14, 20 or 26 squadron at Gutersloh at the moment, although I'm sure I could relocate one of the other squardons :-) (it all depends what spare decals I have :-)  )

[McGreig]

That's a very good point Kit, and does make me wonder what use a ground attack Lightning would've been to anyone really, let alone the RAF ?

I'm not a big fan of the Lightning, but it might not have been that useless.

The contemporary Sukhoi Su-7 was constantly criticised for its short range and requirement for a long runway, but it became the main Soviet ground attack aircraft of the Sixties and it was widely exported.

Comparing the two, the Su-7BKL had a range of 1,650km/1,031miles with the external fuel tanks (the earlier BM was slightly better), while the Lightning F.6 is quoted as having a range of 1,370km/856miles, increasing to 1,660km/1,037 with external tanks.

Now these are not the "fast, low-level, loaded with stores" figures but they do suggest that the Lightning could potentially at least match the Su-7.

However, one drawback might be airframe strength. The Su-7 has no "no step" signs or restricted areas for movement on the wings. The Indian Air Force initially had mixed feelings about its Su-7s but considered them a major success in the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war where, among other things, they proved to be very robust with an ability to absorb a lot more damage than other types.

My feeling is that the Lightning might be a touch more fragile but converting older interceptors into ground attack aircraft doesn't seem that improbable.

[Snowtrooper]

I've got an old Airfix F.3 in The Stash - instead of bothering with any FGA conversion set, I have the intention to just scratchbuild the underwing and overwing pylons of the export versions (or rather, very crude approximations thereof), and using the ordnance from the old Airfix Harrier GR.3, hang 4x1000lb bombs on double racks from the underwing pylons and 4xSNEB pods on double racks from overwing pylons in addition to the twin Firestreaks from the kit, name her "Emergency Strike Fighter" (to fit my whiffworld where around 1975 Cold War drops below 1K and everybody starts REALLY hoarding weapons for the seemingly inevitable WW3 even more than in OTL), slap some RAF decals from the multitude of decal sets I've hoarded on her, and call it a day.

[kitnut617]

the Lightning F.6 is quoted as having a range of 1,370km/856miles, increasing to 1,660km/1,037 with external tanks.

My understanding of the term 'range' is it's radius of action, which would mean 1000 miles out and a 1000 miles back (at the extreme). 

That sort of covers most of Europe ----  and for what the Lightning was designed for, plenty of scope in my view

[McGreig]

My understanding of the term 'range' is it's radius of action,

I've put my references away, but I'm fairly sure that in both cases the range figures that I've quoted are effectively ferry ranges - the combat radius would presumably be somewhere less than half of the maximum range depending on load and speed. And I think that I recall a figure of about 250-300km (156-188 miles) as the Lightning's supersonic intercept radius (although that wouldn't translate directly to a ground attack mission).

[jcf]

One thing to bear in mind is that the Lightning's mission profile in a bomber role would not
be the same as its intercept mission profile. Mach 2 speeds being an unlikely requirement,
Kendra's speed fetish aside.   

[zenrat]

The answer my friends is a Mistel.
The Lightning sits on the back of a, oh I don't know, Canberra? and is hooked into the Canberra fuel tankage until it decouples  close enough to the target to get there, strike and then return to home.

[Librarian]

My understanding of the term 'range' is it's radius of action,

I've put my references away, but I'm fairly sure that in both cases the range figures that I've quoted are effectively ferry ranges - the combat radius would presumably be somewhere less than half of the maximum range depending on load and speed. And I think that I recall a figure of about 250-300km (156-188 miles) as the Lightning's supersonic intercept radius (although that wouldn't translate directly to a ground attack mission).

....and then factor in reheat use. Lightning had just enough range to get to the corner shop once that was engaged.